Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

This is priceless  :lol:   I thought it was the UN's job to deal with Korea and Iran, not America's.  What is the UN doing about Korea and Iran anyway?  Zero, zilch, zip.

But, remember Mabadesc, that the UN gave a mandate for intervention in Korea in 1950. Unless I'm mistaken neither N Korea nor Iran invaded any country during this millenium.

QUOTE

You make it sound like it's America's job to deal with Korea and Iran.

No I make it sound like this administration is pushing those countries into a WMD arm race.

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

But, remember Mabadesc, that the UN gave a mandate for intervention in Korea in 1950. Unless I'm mistaken neither N Korea nor Iran invaded any country during this millenium.

What are you talking about, Chandernagore? We weren't talking about the '50's. Let me refresh your memory with your original quote:

QUOTE

Meanwhile, as a result of the US violating the UN charter and waging an unilateral war of agression, the countries which could be considered real treats (Korea, Iran...) are accelerating their programs.

My question is, what is the UN doing *now* about these "real threats", as you describe them, Korea and Iran. Isn't it the UN's job to intervene?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE But, remember Mabadesc, that the UN gave a mandate for intervention in Korea in 1950. Unless I'm mistaken neither N Korea nor Iran invaded any country during this millenium. What are you talking about, Chandernagore? We weren't talking about the '50's. Let me refresh your memory with your original quote: QUOTE Meanwhile, as a result of the US violating the UN charter and waging an unilateral war of agression, the countries which could be considered real treats (Korea, Iran...) are accelerating their programs. My question is, what is the UN doing *now* about these "real threats", as you describe them, Korea and Iran. Isn't it the UN's job to intervene?

Hogwash, Mabadesc Let me refresh your memory. I said countries that "could be real threat", conditional form. Not "are a real threat".
As long as these countries do nothing that should trigger intervention following the UN charter (signed by the US) there is no legal basis for military action. So my answer is a resounding NO. The UN should not intervene if the proper conditions are not met. What were you thinking ?

[mabadesc]

Well, hogwash right back at you, Chandernagore.

Don't escape the issue. This is what you said:

QUOTE

Meanwhile, as a result of the US violating the UN charter and waging an unilateral war of agression, the countries which could be considered real treats (Korea, Iran...) are accelerating their programs.

Don't give me one of the famous Clintonesque "What is the meaning of "is"" semantics lesson.

You're clearly stating that Korea and Iran could be considered real threats.

QUOTE

As long as these countries do nothing that should trigger intervention following the UN charter (signed by the US) there is no legal basis for military action.

Why are you assuming I was talking about military action? I'm not.
However, Iran and Korea are going in a direction that can easily destabilize the world, and the UN is doing nothing about it. You're the big activist of diplomacy......well, let's see some of the touted UN diplomacy in action. Korea's and Iran's research and development of nuclear weapons violates several UN policies and rules, I'm sure.

What is the UN doing to ameliorate this situation?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

However, Iran and Korea are going in a direction that can easily destabilize the world,

Indeed. They are potential troublemakers.

QUOTE

and the UN is doing nothing about it.

No, because no one can be judged upon a mere assumption, except in the neocon fantasy world. The UN charter has an agreed upon, definite set of conditions which can trigger an intervention.

The point is whether you have the right to attack someone who hasn't attacked you. The clear answer of the UN charter, signed by the United States, is : NO

QUOTE

You're the big activist of diplomacy......well, let's see some of the touted UN diplomacy in action.  Korea's and Iran's research and development of nuclear weapons violates several UN policies and rules, I'm sure.

A country developing nuclear weapons violates no rule that US, England, France, Russia, India ... have not already violated. What you refer to is non proliferation treaties which is an entirely different matter. However the Bush admin has teared apart so many international treaties in a short time span that it would take muchos bravado to point your finger at someone else for doing the same.

[Chandernagore]

9/11 Panel Says Iraq Rebuffed Bin Laden

By HOPE YEN

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States.

In a chilling report that sketched the history of Osama bin Laden's network, the commission said his far-flung training camps were "apparently quite good." Terrorist trainees were encouraged to "think creatively about ways to commit mass murder," it added.

Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in a staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

The Bush administration has long claimed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and cited them as one reason for last year's invasion of Iraq.

On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech that the Iraqi dictator "had long established ties with al-Qaida."

[cnflyboy2000]

QUOTE (\"Chandernagore)

No, because no one can be judged upon a mere assumption, except in the neocon fantasy world. The UN charter has an agreed upon, definite set of conditions which can trigger an intervention. The point is whether you have the right to attack someone who hasn't attacked you. The clear answer of the UN charter, signed by the United States, is : NO.

______________________________________________________________________


U may be aware that part of the neocon litany is the paranoid belief that the U.N. is the forerunner of a "world government" and so anathema to them.

They r not likely to support ANYTHING the UN initiates or stands for.

But...who cares? The neocons r history. They had a nice little run. It's over.

More importantly; r u suggesting the nuke club should throw open the doors for more members? Your course of inaction is tantamount to that, imo.

If the psycho NK's and the mullahs get the bomb, we're all toast.

Somehow reminds me of a song from the Vietnam era:

"And it's a one, two, three, what're we fightin for?
Yipee!, and I don't give a damn; next stop is Vietnam.

And it's five, six, seven, eight; open up the Pearly gate; yipee!, we're all gonna die.

(I know it doesn't make sense; what does? that's the point. don't flame me)_______________________________________________

QUOTE (\"Chandernagore)

A country developing nuclear weapons violates no rule that US, England, France, Russia, India ... have not already violated. What you refer to is non proliferation treaties which is an entirely different matter. However the Bush admin has teared apart so many international treaties in a short time span that it would take muchos bravado to point your finger at someone else for doing the same.

_____________________________________

something they r in no danger of running out of. They're coming way late to the Ban the Bomb party, but at least they r showing signs of a pulse, even if no brain waves r evident.

[cnflyboy2000]

QUOTE

QUOTE i see America's next president is also going to be an ass   Indrid, I think that a lot of Western Europeans (like Chandernagore) falsely put their hopes in the US democratic party. The truth is, - and you hit upon it - that American foreign policy remains pretty much the same regardless of the party in power. They are going to keep protecting the country's interests just as much. What does indeed change with a new administration (and Florin can attest to this) is domestic policy.

________________________________________

Yes, hopefully domestic policy will change b4 the entire country sinks into a deforested strip mine, while choking on SUV exhaust fumes and fighting for the last gallon of gasoline.

But the Dems r not nearly creative enough to come up with as self destructive and delusional a foreign "policy" as has been rammed down our throats over the last few years.

[cnflyboy2000]

QUOTE

.....when was iraq ever a threat? this is a answer that all those high and mighty political dudes in Washington are struggling to answer, and so far they are doing a pretty awful job

___________________________________

Kuwait..... remember?

imo, it's all about three things; oil, oil and oil.

The world economy is addicted to oil. No oil: no commerce. The 1930's depression which precipitated WWII will look like a picnic in comparison, if that happens b4 alternative energy sources r fully developed (cold fusion, anyone?)

Of course they don't want to admit that. So we get WMD's, the AQ "connection" and other fantasies.

And the American public doesn't want to hear they can't drive a gas hog to collect their overweight kiddies from soccer practice. (BTW; the Dems aren't gonna tell them anytime soon...) So...more oil, s' il vous plait, Sheik Saud, sir.

Personally, I think Bush2 wanted to finish the job which his old man (for probably good reason) did not. That SH tried to put a hit on him sealed it. Then B2 hooked up with the neocons, who already had their own wacky wagon rolling along. Da rest is histoire, mon ami.

[Indrid]

you are so right....i liked the one about overweight kids....hillarious


about Kuweit....that was not a world threat, only a threat to US welfare...at least that is how see it...

i am only waiting for the moment when the US politicians( because this thread is only about them, do not understand that we criticize american people here) will openly admit that they serve american goals and interests , and not global democracy or whatever silly else reason. that i see as a insult to the political inteligence of europeans, who have been practicing politics for 2000 years, not only 500....that is all. an admission that irak was for oil, that israel was only created due to pressure groups and not to the organic desire of the world....and the examples continue.

PS: i am sure some will jump on me because of the Israel part, but i accept my punishment with .............. :cheers:

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

an admission that... israel was only created due to pressure groups

Uuuh, Indrid. True or wrong what has it to make with the price of the fish ? It occured almost 60 years ago.

QUOTE

cnflyboy2000 - I think that a lot of Western Europeans (like Chandernagore) falsely put their hopes in the US democratic party.

Well it's not that there is a lot of alternative in a bipartite system .
While the democrats do not look very strong I don't see the old conservatives stopping the mad train of the news conservatives.

QUOTE

U may be aware that part of the neocon litany is the paranoid belief that the U.N. is the forerunner of a \"world government\" and so anathema to them.

Yes I put that stuff between "Snow White and the 7dwarves" and "Friday 13"

QUOTE

that American foreign policy remains pretty much the same regardless of the party in power. They are going to keep protecting the country's interests just as much.

What everybody does. I just hope the method used will change.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

More importantly; r u suggesting the nuke club should throw open the doors for more members?  Your course of inaction is tantamount to that, imo.

Let's face things honestly. Members of the nuke club have no moral or divine right to have nukes and deny them to others. We want the club limited for security reasons. There are only two ways to keep the club closed :

1) diplomacy - non proliferation treaties ; economic sanctions etc..
2) war

Neither qualify as inaction, neither garantees success but the systematic, ideologic use of second is a also a hopeless enterprise.

QUOTE

If the psycho NK's and the mullahs get the bomb, we're all toast.

Well, they already have it. You can no longer stop the North Koreans unless a miracle occurs and Pakistan (a dictatorship rip for Islamic revolution) has it. In both cases neocon policies have accelerated the process.

Of both threats I think Pakistan is by far the most serious. A NK bomb will merely secure the existence of that crazy regime until the Norths Koreans decide they want to try something else. An Islamic bomb however... I wonder if that would not justify full scale war to prevent.

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

... secure the existence of that crazy regime until the Norths Koreans decide they want to try something else.

Typically naive.

What you don't understand is that it's not up to the North Koreans to "try something else". It's up to the handful of crazy people who "are" the regime.

I guess you don't get this point unless you've lived in a communist dictatorship.

[mabadesc]

From Reuters, a brief article:

QUOTE

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (Reuters) - Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned \"terrorist attacks\" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday. \"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues,\" he told reporters. The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States \"and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets.\" \"This information was conveyed to our American colleagues,\" he said. He added that Russian intelligence had no proof that Saddam agents had been involved in any particular attack. Russia had diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq and opposed the U.S.-led military offensive that toppled him. Putin's comments come after President Bush was forced to defend his charge that there had been links between Saddam and al Qaeda that partly justified the U.S.-led invasion.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE ... secure the existence of that crazy regime until the Norths Koreans decide they want to try something else. Typically naive. What you don't understand is that it's not up to the North Koreans to "try something else". It's up to the handful of crazy people who "are" the regime. I guess you don't get this point unless you've lived in a communist dictatorship.

Talk about naivety. You are reasoning at micro level. But then you are probably among those who believe that the Soviet regime was toppled by Reagan's telekinesic powers and the Russians just watched in shock and awe.

Dear Mabadesc, without the support of the army the regime is nothing. Last time I checked the army was composed of North Koreans, not Swiss mercenaries and the North Korean army is quite more than a handful nutcases. Regime changes do occur.